MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4317567792 · doi:10.1007/s00122-023-04244-x

Simulations of rate of genetic gain in dry bean breeding programs

2023· article· en· W4317567792 on OpenAlexafffund
Jennifer Lin, Vivi N. Arief, Zulfi Jahufer, Juan M. Osorno, Phil McClean, Diego Jarquín, Valerio Hoyos‐Villegas

Bibliographic record

VenueTheoretical and Applied Genetics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant pathogens and resistance mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiologyGenetic gainTraitHeritabilitySelection (genetic algorithm)BiotechnologyPlant breedingBreeding programAgronomyPhaseolusPopulationCropGenetic variationCultivarComputer scienceGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

KEY MESSAGE: A reference study for breeders aiming at maximizing genetic gain in common bean. Depending on trait heritability and genetic architecture, conventional approaches may provide an advantage over other frameworks. Dry beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) are a nutrient dense legume that is consumed by developed and developing nations around the world. The progress to improve this crop has been quite steady. However, with the continued rise in global populations, there are demands to expedite genetic gains. Plant breeders have been at the forefront at increasing yields in the common bean. As breeding programs are both time-consuming and resource intensive, resource allocation must be carefully considered. To assist plant breeders, computer simulations can provide useful information that may then be applied to the real world. This study evaluated multiple breeding scenarios in the common bean and involved five selection strategies, three breeding frameworks, and four different parental population sizes. In addition, the breeding scenarios were implemented in three different traits: days to flowering, white mold tolerance, and seed yield. Results from the study reflect the complexity of breeding programs, with the optimal breeding scenario varying based on trait being selected. Relative genetic gains per cycle of up to 8.69% for seed yield could be obtained under the use of the optimal breeding scenario. Principal component analyses revealed similarity between strategies, where single seed descent and the modified pedigree method would often aggregate. As well, clusters in the direction of the Hamming distance eigenvector are a good indicator of poor performance in a strategy.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.629
Threshold uncertainty score0.136

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.198 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTheoretical and Applied GeneticsSame topicPlant pathogens and resistance mechanismsFrench-language works237,207